Eh? What and human rights?

I see on Tina Beattie’s page at Roehampton that one of her teaching interests is Religion and Human Rights. That’s a strange pairing, I thought – even stranger than those pairings of ‘Religion and Ethics’ that we see everywhere (such as at the BBC). Why religion and human rights? It is so often bishops or priests or mullahs who oppose human rights rather than supporting them – it seems odd to link them. The pairing of religion and ethics gives religion the credit for ideas and views that are often entirely secular; pairing religion with human rights would seem to do the same thing.

Is there a schism between the human rights movement and religious communities? Essential disagreements appear increasingly to pit secular human rights activists against individuals and groups acting from religious motives. The list of contentious issues is growing: on issues such as reproductive rights, gay marriage, the fight against HIV/AIDS, and blasphemy laws, human rights activists and religious groups often find themselves on opposing sides.

Yes we do, and on the human rights side we find ourselves dealing with bad or no arguments from the religious groups. ‘We want to block these suggested rights, and we don’t have a real reason, we just know that God wants us to, so we’re more devout than you are, so we have the moral high ground, so you should give in to us.’

The controversy that hit the EU in October 2004 around…conservative Catholic Rocco Buttiglione illustrates some of the issues at stake. Unperturbed by the furor he was arousing, the candidate for Commissioner on Justice, Freedom, and Security—who in that function would have been in charge of fighting discrimination—affirmed in front of bewildered members of the European Parliament that “homosexuality is a sin” and that “the family exists to allow women to have children and be protected by their husbands.”

Well…maybe what we mean is ‘Liberal Religion and Human Rights.’ But that’s not what it says – and the sad fact is that most religion isn’t liberal. It’s a comfortable illusion of the safe middle-class in the safe developed countries that most religion is liberal and getting more so all the time – hence perhaps the bewilderment of the members of the European Parliament – but it is indeed an illusion. One of the perks of religion is being able to be dogmatically and arbitrarily opposed to lots of things you don’t happen to like, and most believers have no interest at all in giving up that perk. If it’s human rights you’re after, religion is generally the wrong place to look. (Yes there are exceptions; yes MLK was religious.)

28 Responses to “Eh? What and human rights?”

In Chile at least the Catholic Church has been a fervent and consistent defender of certain human rights. During the Pinochet dictatorship (1973-1990) the Church not only defended the right to life, to due process, to not be tortured, to speak out without censorship, but also provided a cover (asking very few questions)which allowed secular defenders of those same rights to operate with relative security. Not all of the lawyers of the Vicaría de la Solidaridad were Catholics; some were Marxists and atheists. Since the end of the dictatorship, the Church has taken a role in defending the human rights of Peruvian immigrants (the subject of much discrmination), of Native-American people, of the homeless as well as the right to a decent wage. A bishop, Sergio Valech, led a presidential commission which investigated and reported on the use of torture during the Pinochet dictatorship. Now, other human rights, for the example, the right to an abortion, the right to receive birth control information, the right of gay people to form couples, are not on the Church’s agenda.

Jakob the U.S. bill of rights maybe should be amended to include these isues? aren’t these just personal choice isues rather than human rights,otherwise where does it end a human right to have children or a human right to have a house, a human right to a living wage and on and on.

Amos, you are half right. In Chile (and other Latin American countries), some Catholic priests (even bishops) have been strong human rights and political rights advocates. Not, however, the Catholic Church as an institution: The church hierarchy – most especially der Popenfuhrer – has decisively and repeatedly rejected liberation theology. However those conflicts are characterized by the Church, the real reason for the opposition is simply that the essentially authoritarian character of the Catholic Church cannot abide by a doctrine which so strongly emphasizes human freedom.

“Jakob the U.S. bill of rights maybe should be amended to include these isues? aren’t these just personal choice isues rather than human rights,otherwise where does it end a human right to have children or a human right to have a house, a human right to a living wage and on and on.”

Sorry, I didn’t realise the U.S. bill of right was definitive. As a non-American I am not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but didn’t the US Supreme Court rule that bans on abortion and same-sex marriage are unconstitutional?

No they aren’t. You don’t help the cause of human rights by inflating the concept to include everything you think is desirable. Why are there so many people who can’t tell the difference between human and civil rights?

G: I never said that the Chilean Church hierarchy backed liberation theology. They did support those human rights which I outlined above.

G.Tingley: All abortion is illegal in Chile, even in the case of a risk to the mother’s life. I suspect that in the case of ectopic pregnancy the doctors would find a loop-hole. As always, anyone with money buys an abortion easily.

Wasn’t the Pinochet regime signed up to Operation Condor, the opus dei idea to supply chaplains to torturers to reassure them that not only did God approve of torture, but regarded it as a duty.

Did MLK stand up for human rights because he was religious or he just happened to be a religious person standing up for human rights? after all his opponents probably regarded themselves as holier than him.

I’m afraid that by the time Tina Beattie had told me that religio was Latin and given me a helpful run-down on what post-modern means I’d lost patience and gone on to the next item. Did I miss anything?

I think that the way religions attempt to subsume ethics, morality, into themselves is probably one of their greatest strengths, and goes a long way towards explaining their continued hold over people who tend to equate ‘being religious’ with ‘being good’.

“our fallen nature’s solitary boast”, as ready symbolic reminders of her immaculate purity and of her prerogatives, as our divinely blessed model and mediatrix, in intimate cooperative union with Christ, of the graces for our spiritual perfection”

“I suspect that in the case of ectopic pregnancy the doctors would find a loop-hole.”

Well in Nicaragua at least – another place where all abortion is illegal, no exceptions to save the life of the mother – doctors don’t find a loop-hole; on the contrary, doctors and hospitals turn away pregnant women who are bleeding, because they’re afraid to touch them.

Jakob the U.S bill of rights is the gold standard for human rights bills it not only unambiguously grants its freedoms it also grants the American people the right to defend those freedoms by way of the second amendment.To change the bill of rights you would need a super majority in both houses and at least 38 states would have to ratify that change.

Actually, Richard, as an American (and a political philosopher) I have to say that you are simply wrong. The Bill of Rights is not primarily about HUMAN rights at all, but about POLITICAL rights, which is not at all the same thing by any reasonable definition.

And your… interesting perspective on the primacy of the 2nd Amendment in guaranteeing the rest is not widely shared among legal scholars – although it is quite popular among right wing demagogues and talk radio troglodytes.

All you really need to know about the US Bill of Rights is that for the first 70 years of its existence it provided absolutely no barrier to the maintenance of chattel slavery… Were *your* ancestors property?

It was *really* good at preventing the free-quartering of federal troops, though, Yay Third Amendment!

‘Zactly, Dave. Among other differences, political rights are awarded and denied based upon citizenship status – and citizenship status itself can be conferred or withheld by the powers that be, hence slavery in the 19th century and before, and the second-class status of women in the U.S. until fairly recently. Human rights belong to humans as such, and cannot be conferred or withheld by anyone’s political will (although of course they can be observed or violated). The Bill of Rights does not in any way attempt to enumerate or affirm human rights as such, but is strictly a statement of political rights adhering to U.S. citizenship, and citizenship itself was redefined to include people of all races by the 13th & 14th Amendments. In theory, all forms of discrimination are forbidden by the wording of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Also of interest in this context is the 9th Amendment, which in a way obliquely acknowledges human rights as separate from political rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

“Along the way, Buttiglione had said and written much that piqued the interest of the European parliamentarians, including a 1989 speculation on whether AIDS was “divine punishment.” He had vocally opposed abortion and aired misgivings about artificial insemination. When the subject of homosexuality and sin arose during hearings on his portfolio, Buttiglione stressed that the moral language of religion and the legal language of politics didn’t belong in the same conversation.”

G. I would disagree with those legal scholars I think the 2nd amendment is the ultimate expresion of freedom,I would doubt if the U.K. goverment would feel quite so free to propose stuff like this if we had a second amendment?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4860642.stm or ever more draconian speech laws either?

It doesn’t prove anything, dude. But incidentally, I was under the impression that people who believed that the 2nd Amendment gave them the right to resist the govt by force had a nasty habit of ending up on the wrong end of a SWAT team – any thoughts on that?

And have you any idea how many people in the USA think that it is already a police state?? Dick Cheney is certainly one…

Oh yeah, you bet, if only the UK had a second amendment so that MPs could be afraid they would get shot in the head at any time, like Benazir Bhutto or Zill-e-Huma or Malalai Joya or Shukria Barakzai. What a fucking brilliant idea. If only we had more people with guns running around threatening elected politicians, the world would be so much better off. It’s certainly worked out brilliantly in the US! Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, a few abortion doctors – oh yes indeedy, there’s nothing like more and more guns for increasing and ‘expressing’ freedom.

If this guy were a lesbian, raped by his father, and became pregnant, I would bet he would want some of those “inflated” human rights so he could end the pregnancy quickly and take steps that this sort of thing never happened to anyone else.

If this guy were a lesbian, raped by his father, and became pregnant, I would bet he would want some of those “inflated” human rights so he could end the pregnancy quickly and take steps that this sort of thing never happened to anyone else.